ILNews

Exploring e-discovery in federal courts

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The first year of a federal e-discovery program is now complete in the 7th Circuit, and despite its success one clear message sets the stage for how the pilot project moves forward: More Indiana judges and attorneys need to step up and get involved.

At an annual joint meeting of the 7th Circuit Bar Association and Judicial Conference for the 7th Circuit May 2-4, more than 600 lawyers and judges from the three-state Circuit converged on downtown Chicago for a conference that had at its core the e-discovery project that’s been under way since October.

With the pilot project serving as a backdrop, several seminars centered on the issue and each person attending a seminar the first day received a 70-page report on the first phase. The full 425-page report is available online at www.7thcircuitbar.org.
 

james holderman Holderman

Running Oct. 1, 2009, to May 1, 2010, the pilot program is designed to streamline discovery and resolve e-discovery disputes by encouraging earlier and more informal meetings and conferences between attorneys and the court. A list of established principles identify the formats of this kind of contemporary discovery that are generally not required to be preserved in order to reduce litigation fights and overall costs.

“It’s a new decade, and it’s time for a new approach,” said Chief Judge Frank Holderman from the Northern District of Illinois, who led the pilot project’s first phase along with U.S. Magistrate Judge Nan Nolan. “E-discovery and electronically stored information is something that will be with us for the rest of our legal careers. That’s the way the world is now.”

On the opening day of the conference, Chief Judge Holderman pointed out that during United States Supreme Court Chief Justice John G. Roberts’ visit to Indiana University School of Law – Indianapolis in April, the justice spoke about the high costs of litigation that can stem from massive discovery. Chief Judge Holderman noted the irony that the comments came in Indianapolis, the same city where informal talks began at the 2009 7th Circuit meeting about establishing an e-discovery initiative.

“Judges and lawyers just haven’t been attuned to this … and that’s a frustration,” he said.

Those participating so far say the hope is that this multi-year, multi-phase process will change some of the distrust between opposing counsel and allow attorneys to get what they want in discovery quicker and more efficiently.

Generally, the pilot project is divided into early case assessment and education areas, with each of those subdivided into guidance regarding:

• The duty for attorneys to meet and confer and identify disputes for early resolution;

• E-discovery liaisons, who could be attorneys or third-party consultants familiar with a party’s e-discovery efforts and how those documents are stored or produced;

• Preservation requests and orders;

• Scope of preservation;

• Identification of electronically stored information;

• Production format; and

• Judicial expectations of counsel

During this initial stage, the program’s principles were applied to certain cases throughout the Circuit, with an emphasis on the Northern District of Illinois where Chief Judge Holderman and other key players are situated. More than 2,000 lawyers and judges participated in web seminars on the topic earlier this year; specifically 13 judges within the Northern District of Illinois – five District judges and eight magistrates – brought the concepts into 93 civil cases pending before them. Nearly 300 attorneys participated. While the participation is Illinois-focused, some Indiana and Wisconsin attorneys took part.

The newly released report on phase one shows that all participating judges either agreed or strongly agreed that the involvement of e-discovery liaisons made the process more efficient, and more than 90 percent thought the concepts increased or greatly increased counsels’ level of attention to the technologies involved in the discovery process and how their clients produce discovery from those systems.

Attorneys didn’t have as positive feedback to the e-discovery principles, according to the report. Less than half of the participating attorneys responded, but significantly 61 percent of those found the principles had no effect on the parties’ ability to resolve e-discovery disputes without court involvement. Respondents were fairly evenly divided as to the role of their respective clients regarding e-discovery; however, 43 percent reported that the principles improved the fairness of the discovery process, and 55 percent believed they had no effect on that fairness. Only 3 percent saw a decrease, the report shows.

While the attorney participation isn’t detailed in the full report, those leading the effort say the Indiana and Wisconsin communities weren’t as largely represented as they’d hoped. The little involvement from those states was a disappointment for this stage, leaders said. Tables were set up at the 7th Circuit conference for people to sign up to participate, and several attorneys from Indiana had written their names down.

Leaders hope to expand the geographic reach of the pilot program for the second phase – July 1, 2010, through May 2011 – as well as modify certain parts of the established principles or explore particular nuances that come up relating to e-discovery. This is largely because Chief Judge Holderman and Magistrate Nolan are both from Illinois’ Northern District, but also because other jurisdictions haven’t had the same kind of e-discovery issues in their own cases.

“Fortunately, we’ve been able to dodge those thornier e-discovery issues that others have faced in the Circuit,” said U.S. Magistrate Judge Tim A. Baker in the Southern District of Indiana, who participated in a panel discussion at the conference. “Not everything’s been smooth sailing at every stage, but by and large lawyers here and their clients have been addressing these e-discovery issues early on. That could be why there hasn’t been a rush to join, and I don’t know if there will be, but we certainly have that information.”

Listening to the presentations, Ice Miller attorney Brian Paul said he was enthused about the initiative but would like to see some more cost-shifting factored into the process, if costs are an important reason behind the project. If the courts consider cost-shifting when parties or plaintiffs request documents, that could scale down those initial requests and possibly fine-tune what’s being explored for discovery, he said.

During the conference, judges and lawyers from all jurisdictions said various parts of the pilot project are already being used in pending litigation they have. Sitting on an eight-person panel, Magistrate Judge Baker said he regularly pushes attorneys to meet and confer about discovery issues even before pre-trial conferences. That’s helped him avoid and resolve many possible discovery problems, he said.

Recently, that issue surfaced in a multi-million dollar case in which lawyers hadn’t discussed e-discovery before coming before him. They submitted a case management plan, but Magistrate Judge Baker denied that plan and ordered the attorneys to talk more before submitting a more comprehensive plan within 14 days. He expects that plan to be much more substantive in the discovery area, he said.

“You have to be willing to raise those issues at a pre-trial hearing,” Magistrate Judge Baker said.
 

debbie lynch Lynch

Magistrate Judge Debra McVicker Lynch from the Southern District of Indiana echoed that thought and said she wants attorneys to call her court to set up discovery conferences in order to address any communication issues they might have with opposing counsel.

She has three cases pending where e-discovery seems to be burdensome. After she set evidentiary hearings, the issues went away because counsel started talking more with IT people as a result and resolved the problems. If it’s a matter of one side’s attorney not responding adequately, a conference could motivate that party to respond, she said.

“(E-discovery) is not a subset of discovery anymore … almost every case discovery has some e-component to it,” she said. “But sometimes, we don’t know how complex an issue is.” •
 

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Call it unauthorized law if you must, a regulatory wrong, but it was fraud and theft well beyond that, a seeming crime! "In three specific cases, the hearing officer found that Westerfield did little to no work for her clients but only issued a partial refund or no refund at all." That is theft by deception, folks. "In its decision to suspend Westerfield, the Supreme Court noted that she already had a long disciplinary history dating back to 1996 and had previously been suspended in 2004 and indefinitely suspended in 2005. She was reinstated in 2009 after finally giving the commission a response to the grievance for which she was suspended in 2004." WOW -- was the Indiana Supreme Court complicit in her fraud? Talk about being on notice of a real bad actor .... "Further, the justices noted that during her testimony, Westerfield was “disingenuous and evasive” about her relationship with Tope and attempted to distance herself from him. They also wrote that other aggravating factors existed in Westerfield’s case, such as her lack of remorse." WOW, and yet she only got 18 months on the bench, and if she shows up and cries for them in a year and a half, and pays money to JLAP for group therapy ... back in to ride roughshod over hapless clients (or are they "marks") once again! Aint Hoosier lawyering a great money making adventure!!! Just live for the bucks, even if filthy lucre, and come out a-ok. ME on the other hand??? Lifetime banishment for blowing the whistle on unconstitutional governance. Yes, had I ripped off clients or had ANY disciplinary history for doing that I would have fared better, most likely, as that it would have revealed me motivated by Mammon and not Faith. Check it out if you doubt my reading of this, compare and contrast the above 18 months with my lifetime banishment from court, see appendix for Bar Examiners report which the ISC adopted without substantive review: https://www.scribd.com/doc/299040839/2016Petitionforcert-to-SCOTUS

  2. Wow, over a quarter million dollars? That is a a lot of commissary money! Over what time frame? Years I would guess. Anyone ever try to blow the whistle? Probably not, since most Hoosiers who take notice of such things realize that Hoosier whistleblowers are almost always pilloried. If someone did blow the whistle, they were likely fired. The persecution of whistleblowers is a sure sign of far too much government corruption. Details of my own personal experience at the top of Hoosier governance available upon request ... maybe a "fake news" media outlet will have the courage to tell the stories of Hoosier whistleblowers that the "real" Hoosier media (cough) will not deign to touch. (They are part of the problem.)

  3. So if I am reading it right, only if and when African American college students agree to receive checks labeling them as "Negroes" do they receive aid from the UNCF or the Quaker's Educational Fund? In other words, to borrow from the Indiana Appellate Court, "the [nonprofit] supposed to be [their] advocate, refers to [students] in a racially offensive manner. While there is no evidence that [the nonprofits] intended harm to [African American students], the harm was nonetheless inflicted. [Black students are] presented to [academia and future employers] in a racially offensive manner. For these reasons, [such] performance [is] deficient and also prejudice[ial]." Maybe even DEPLORABLE???

  4. I'm the poor soul who spent over 10 years in prison with many many other prisoners trying to kill me for being charged with a sex offense THAT I DID NOT COMMIT i was in jail for a battery charge for helping a friend leave a boyfriend who beat her I've been saying for over 28 years that i did not and would never hurt a child like that mine or anybody's child but NOBODY wants to believe that i might not be guilty of this horrible crime or think that when i say that ALL the paperwork concerning my conviction has strangely DISAPPEARED or even when the long beach judge re-sentenced me over 14 months on a already filed plea bargain out of another districts court then had it filed under a fake name so i could not find while trying to fight my conviction on appeal in a nut shell people are ALWAYS quick to believe the worst about some one well I DID NOT HURT ANY CHILD EVER IN MY LIFE AND HAVE SAID THIS FOR ALMOST 30 YEARS please if anybody can me get some kind of justice it would be greatly appreciated respectfully written wrongly accused Brian Valenti

  5. A high ranking Indiana supreme Court operative caught red handed leading a group using the uber offensive N word! She must denounce or be denounced! (Or not since she is an insider ... rules do not apply to them). Evidence here: http://m.indianacompanies.us/friends-educational-fund-for-negroes.364110.company.v2#top_info

ADVERTISEMENT